Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-12-03
Supreme Court.

M. p. Holbert ct al. VS.. Heirs Of Robert
II. Young ct al. appeal from E lis. APP
pellees claim the land in controversy
through deed made By A. U. Afford
executed to Robert 81. Young OF April Is,
1881, In consideration Of 5000, ell of which
was paid except $500, and for this Young
executed to Afford g negotiable note
which was outstanding and not showed
to be in the hands of Afford. A. Q.
Afford claimed the land under 6 deed
made to him by George +. Afford as ad-
ministrator of the estate of Earle
Cravens, deceased, whose heir, M. P.
Holbert, formerly Fortson, was. George T.
Afford sold the land as the administrator
of the estate Of Earle Crsvens, deceased,
under an order of the Probste court for
Dallas county regular in form and made
TO raise money to pay the debts of the
estate. The sale to A. .. Afford, con-
flrmation thereof, deed from the admins
traitor to a. q. Afford and from the latter
to Robert Il. Young, all occurred
prior to an application made to
the Probate court for Dallas
county to set aside the administration
in that county on Craven's estate, and
to set aside the proceedings had under it.
Sec. 62, Tex. 577 and 81 Tex. 48S ]
George F. and a. .. Afford were made
defendants, the petition alleging that the
former was resident of Dallas county,
and the latter of Van Zandt county. The
appellants sought to recover the land on
the ground that everything done under
the administration IN Dallas county was
| void, and in the alternative they prayed
for Judgment against the widow and
heirs Of Robert H. Young for the 5000
unpaid purchase money with inter-
est thereon; and further, for q iudg-
ment against George F. and a. q. Afford
| for $500, with interest thereon from April
| 10, 1881. a. U. Afford was brought into
the case by the defendants Young, on his
warranty. The court entered q judg-
ment in favor Of the defendants Young,
and sustained the plea to the
| Jurisdiction filed by the defendants Afford
on the ground that they resided in coun-
| ties other than Ellis. The first assign
ment is that the court erred in holding
as matter of law that no fraud was shown
to have been committed by the defendants
Afford. Held: We do not find that the
court so held, but had this occurred we
| do not see that such ruling could have
affected the merits of the case or have
had any bearing on the questions which
that R. q. Young was an innocent pur-
chaser, and that the orders and DEGREES
of the Probate court for Dallas county
while voidable were not void, and thst he
and those claiming through him were en-
titled TO protection. This we deem to be
the law. Appellant urges that the
court erred in rendering a judg-
ment in favor of the de-
fendsnts Young without requiring them
to pay to the plaintiffs the balance due on
the purchase money, which R. q. Young
agreed to pay A. q. Afford. Held: The
record does not show that the outstand-
ing negotiable note is not in the hands of
an innocent purchaser for value by in
dorsement and liability to pay that in
debtedness twice cannot thus be imposed
upon them. Affirmed. Stsyton, j.
| Rockwell county vs.. KSufman coun-
ty; appeal from Ellis county. This
was proceeding instituted in the court
below By appellant against appellee for